Anna Christie v Mary Ward Legal Centre & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1814 (KB)
Vitalijus Dziugys v Ersan and Co Solicitors Ltd
1 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 434 (KB)
High Court
A client sued his solicitors for messing up his injury claim. The judge said the solicitors did a good enough job, even if they made some small mistakes. The client couldn’t prove that the mistakes caused him to lose the case. So, the client lost the lawsuit against his lawyers.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Dziugys sued Ersan & Co Solicitors for professional negligence after losing a personal injury claim.
- •Ersan inherited the case from Hafezi Solicitors at a late stage.
- •The central issue was whether Ersan was negligent in its handling of the case, particularly concerning a potentially forged witness statement.
- •The trial focused on breach of duty and causation as preliminary issues.
- •Mr. Dziugys alleged various instances of negligence, including failure to identify a forged witness statement, missing documents, and inadequate advice on appeal.
Legal Principles
Solicitors owe a duty of care to exercise reasonable care and skill within the scope of their retainer.
Midland Bank Trust Co. Ltd and Another v Hett, Stubbs & Kemp (A Firm) [1979] Ch 384
The test for negligence is what a reasonably competent solicitor would do, considering professional standards.
Midland Bank Trust Co. Ltd and Another v Hett, Stubbs & Kemp (A Firm) [1979] Ch 384
A mere mistake is not necessarily negligence; the court considers the circumstances and whether the action was within the range of reasonable options.
Saif Ali v Sydney Mitchell & Co [1980] AC 198
Solicitor's conduct is assessed without hindsight; the standard of care is based on prospective, not retrospective, events.
Duchess of Argyll v Beuselinck [1972] 2 Lloyds Rep 172
In professional negligence, causation must be proven; 'loss of a chance' evaluations are used when the outcome depends on what others would have done.
Perry v Raleys [2020] AC 352; Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons [1995] 1 WLR 1602
Claimants must prove a 'real and substantial chance' of a better outcome, not a speculative one.
Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons and Simmons [1995] 1 WLR 1602
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The claimant failed to prove Ersan acted negligently or that any alleged negligence caused him loss. The court found Ersan acted reasonably given the circumstances and the late stage of their involvement.
No breach of duty regarding the potentially forged witness statement.
Ersan reasonably relied on the prior work of Hafezi Solicitors. While minor procedural irregularities existed, these did not constitute negligence in the absence of other indications of wrongdoing.
No breach of duty regarding missing documents.
Ersan’s actions were considered reasonable given the late stage of their involvement and the lack of evidence that missing documents would have altered the outcome of the trial.
No breach of duty regarding advice on appeal.
Ersan's advice against appealing was deemed sound, given the judge's findings of fact.
No breach of duty regarding sending the case file to the insurer.
Sending the file was considered in the client's best interests to secure indemnity for costs. While consent was not obtained, this was an oversight not amounting to a breach of duty.
Similar Cases
Alexander Kuznetsov v Edwards Duthie Shamash (a firm) & Ors
[2024] EWHC 870 (KB)
Hope Capital Limited & Anor v Alexander Reece Thomson LLP
[2023] EWHC 3157 (KB)
Stephen John Finnan v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
[2023] EWHC 3058 (Ch)
Niprose Investments Limited & Ors v Vincents Solicitors Limited
[2024] EWHC 801 (Ch)